I see in the Reddit post you’ve linked to the NSF test results, where can we find the results of the other 16 tests?
1 Like
The outrage culture in the US is hilarious. And it’s about everything except about the things that matter.
Certainly concerning as someone who has been consuming Huel daily for many years.
But… a short look into the reputation of Consumer Reports quickly belayed my a large chunk of my concern.
Many reports of them being a dodgy company who just try to scam money from their users and more concerning accusations of being bought by certain brands.
I still have want to know more, as I find it unlikely CR are just making up their data, and will be running some blood tests to check heavy metal levels, just to be safe. But I can safely say if it hasn’t effected me, the rest of you are probably fine, so will let you know!
Thanks for the helpful input.
This pretty scary, but I really like Huel. And ChatGPT says there is probably more lead in other food.
With Halloween coming up and everything being scary, have you considered a Pumpkin flavored Huel?
I don’t think it’s fair to say that we aren’t interested in the discrepancy, but rather that we have 17 tests and an NSF report that have demonstrated much lower levels, and I’m not sure the best path forward is to interrogate CR on the one test they performed.
But to provide some context to the FDA IRL, it’s calculated based on the CDC’s blood reference level for children of 3.5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of whole blood (µg /dL). The IRL for lead includes a 10x safety factor. This means that it is nearly ten times lower than the amount of lead intake from food that would be required to reach the CDC’s blood reference level.
This isn’t to say that the FDA IRL is not a good limit, but I think it’s worth keeping in mind that this limit was also developed with a lot of headroom and to protect a particularly vulnerable population. The global limit for lead set by the European Food Safety Authority guidance is 270 micrograms (µg) / serving.
In terms of independent testing, we favour publishing the NSF Report because it’s so widely recognised. It’s the gold standard of product safety and quality. It’s a single, independent certification that covers all key safety tests, including heavy metals that people recognise . It’s the clearest and most recognised proof of product safety we can share.
That’s very interesting! Thank you for sharing 
We can appreciate exercising caution! We’re committed to transparency and will continue to publish verified results and certifications, including our NSF reports.
These results would be interesting to see, if you feel comfortable sharing them!
If there’s anything more we can do to provide some clarity, please let us know! Always happy to chat.
I said “It’s extremely odd that you don’t seem interested in finding out why your results are so different from CR’s”, any company regardless of their product should be highly interested in why there is such a huge variance. Do you plan on investigating the discrepancy?
I’m glad the NSF report is so widely recognized, where can I see the other reports? The request has been made both here and on Reddit without answer (or at least none that I’ve seen).
Where can we find all of the reports? According the post on Reddit there are 17 of them.
1 Like
The difference between NSF’s results and what Consumer Reports listed comes down to very small numbers, literally millionths of a gram. Even at the higher number they reported (6.3µg), it’s still tiny compared to the EU’s food safety level of 270µg per serving.
As others have noted, when it comes down to micrograms, these kinds of measurements done with ICPMS are highly variable,
So the gap between NSF figure (1.8µg) and theirs (6.3µg) looks big on paper, but in real terms it’s negligible - both are thousands of times below any level of concern. These kinds of variations happen naturally because trace minerals like lead and cadmium occur in soil, so you’ll always see small fluctuations depending on how and where ingredients are grown.
If you want to see the full data and how global safety standards compare, we’ve explained it all here: Heavy Metals in Huel – What You Need to Know | Huel US
I really want to bring this back to the key points before answering your question directly.
- Heavy metals occur naturally in soil. Trace minerals such as lead occur naturally in our planet and so are found in soil, water and plants. The level in Huel is no different from everyday meals. Those levels are in millionths of grams. We’re going to update our site with some comparisons to everyday foods from the FDA and UK equivalent to show this
- Consumer Reports (CR) safety level for heavy metals is misleading and unscientific. The Consumer Reports article is based on California’s Proposition 65, which uses an ultra conservative threshold of 0.5 micrograms (µg) of lead per day. California rules divide the observable effect limit by 1000 to allow a margin for error. It’s not an internationally recognised measure of risk.
- The levels of heavy metals in Huel are far below the EFSA level of risk
- The EU benchmark for lead is 270 micrograms (µg) per 90g serving of Black Edition
- Huel’s was under 3.6µg tested by the NSF
- The EU benchmark for cadmium is 90µg/90g serving of Black Edition
- Huel’s was 1.5µg tested by NSF
There are heap of articles right now that are critiquing the CR article widely as being misleading and unscientific. NPA described here as “alarmist, misleading and unscientific” and the CRN have described here as creating a “misleading impression of risk”. This is a quote from this NPR article - “A finding that a product exceeds Consumer Reports’ self-imposed threshold is not the same as exceeding a government safety limit, nor is it evidence of any safety risk to consumers,”
In addition there are plenty of people on this subreddit now getting blood test results back after years of high Black Edition consumption with safe and normal levels of lead in their blood.
Regarding the other test results, we won’t be sharing these. The reality is, no matter how thorough or credible the data, there’ll always be some scepticism about anything we share ourselves. We’ve heard a few times now “independent? no, because you paid for it” (and not from you I know!) - which we get, but that’s just how product testing works.
Posting every single report risks confusing things or letting people cherry-pick one result, because there would be variation naturally, instead rather than seeing the consistent pattern: every test shows Huel sits well within global safety limits.
That’s why we share our NSF certification. NSF is one of the most respected independent bodies in the world and covers all the same tests (including heavy metals). It’s the clearest, most credible way to show Huel is properly tested and completely safe.
1 Like
Yikes, you’ve completely thrown transparency out the window. It’s interesting you claim you don’t want people cherry picking tests when you’re cherry picking yourself.
I had come around to your logic regarding the results but refusing to share safety tests is a slap in the face and greatly degrades trust.
At the bottom of your heavy metals page it says “Will Huel share test data? Yes. We’re committed to transparency and will continue to publish verified results and certifications, including our NSF reports.”
I assume you will you be removing this given your refusal to share the results.
I think we might already be talking on Reddit (but let me know if I’m mistaken)! Just want to avoid any repetition.
But for clarity, we haven’t cherry-picked the numbers we’ve given thus far. We’ve given an average across all tests (1.8 µg) as well as the full range across tests for lead (1.5–2.2 µg per serve).
No, we will not be removing this part of the Heavy Metals page, as it is accurate. We did release our NSF report, and will continue to publish verified results and certifications. This was not a promise to release all testing ever conducted.
I’m not on Reddit but I’ll take a look at the discussion. What is the range in your testing for cadmium?
Gonna need regular reports and testing to regain confidence.
2 Likes
Replying to this message, but I wanted to thank the team for all their responses. I found the headline worrisome, but after looking at the numbers and also the result ranges you provided for your tests, this has put the issue at rest for me and I feel as okay having Huel as I do eating an apple and a salad as far as lead is concerned. I do wish CR also tested leafy greens and published those results alongside the protein powders, but I think it would have made it clear how absurd it is!
1 Like